WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[Ape of Good Hope]

I actually don't have time for this type of ninny nonsense. It would seem like TFK would as, judging from the length of his posts and the number of posts I see him make here and on the Internet at large, there is no way he can have a fulltime engineering job like I do.

Here are some stats to aid Tony with his critical thinking:

Tony Szamboti
Join Date
2nd June 2007
Total Posts
2,314
Total posts in this thread
288



tfk:
Join Date
26th October 2006
Total Posts
2,662
Total posts in this thread
144

Similar overall post count given their respective join dates, and Tony has twice as many posts as tfk in this thread.

 

[tfk]

And this just occurred to me...

This is a SUPERB example of what is wrong with Tony's calculations.

NIST's preliminary model was 1000x more comprehensive than Tony's model. (It also just assumed some temperatures, rather than calculated them, for example.)

And yet, that model gave COMPLETELY WRONG ANSWERS, compared to the ANSYS model, which allowed components to heat & cool, fail in the order in which they did, etc.

This is the best proof that I can think of to demonstrate why overly simplified models of complex systems can not be trusted to produce meaningful results.


tom

 

[beachnut]

I actually don't have time for this type of ninny nonsense. It would seem like TFK would as, judging from the length of his posts and the number of posts I see him make here and on the Internet at large, there is no way he can have a fulltime engineering job like I do.

You are unable to take action on what you know is CD and expose what the bad guys did. You don't have time to save us from the evil doers. Who would not take action if they knew what you knew?

Why can't you take action? You have nothing, you have delusional nonsense - you can't take the time to present your case because all you have is fantasy.

Do the math; you and tfk are posting the same numbers. Maybe tfk is 10 times faster at typing, which leave you thinking it takes too much time... Is your boss upset your woo is spilling into your work? Is your job keeping you from exposing the biggest Pulitzer Prize winning story in 100 years?

It is common to play the sour grapes when you fail to support your claims, faced with eternal failure. Better approach; explain your failure mode in detail, don't mention NIST. Try to be an engineer, explain what your failure sequence is. What did it? Present evidence, like an engineer. What is stopping you from breaking the big story?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Here are some stats to aid Tony with his critical thinking:

Tony Szamboti
Join Date
2nd June 2007
Total Posts
2,314
Total posts in this thread
288



tfk:
Join Date
26th October 2006
Total Posts
2,662
Total posts in this thread
144

Similar overall post count given their respective join dates, and Tony has twice as many posts as tfk in this thread.

That is this thread alone and the JREF forum alone. TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?

It is apparent that TFK's job is to try to argue for the present official story and against engineers who have spoken out against it and who are demanding a new investigation. If that fails, people like TFK then try to make it appear that people like me haven't and can never consider all of the factors involved. That is simply nonsense and all of TFK's attempts at trying to get more translation for the girder to walk-off its seat have been shown to be non-viable. This recent bit, by the likes of his fellow but apparently lower level ubiquitous apologist Oystein, is nothing more than an attempt at wearing me out. It has been shown, in a more than sufficient way, here and elsewhere, that the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 could not have walked-off its seat laterally and that the NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is an impossibility. Therefore a new investigation is justified.

There is one additional point I am doing more analysis on, which BasqueArch brought up, and that is an axial walk-off. NIST did not use this and my hand calculations show it is not viable either, but I am doing a finite element analysis of it to be sure.

 

[tsig]

That is this thread alone and the JREF forum alone. TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?

I am going to say here that anyone who, after seeing the collapse of WTC 7 on tape, still thinks it came down by fire, is a little kooky and not using the head God gave them.It is apparent that TFK's job is to try to argue for the present official story and against engineers who have spoken out against it and who are demanding a new investigation. If that fails people like TFK try to make it appear that people like me haven't and can never consider all of the factors involved. That is simply nonsense and all of TFK's attempts at trying to get more translation for the girder to walk-off its seat have been shown to be non-viable. This recent bit, by the likes of his fellow but apparently lower level ubiquitous apologist Oystein, is nothing more than an attempt at wearing me out. It has been shown, in a more than sufficient way, here and elsewhere, that the girder between columns 44 and 79 under the 13th floor of WTC 7 could not have walked-off its seat laterally and that the NIST collapse initiation mechanism for WTC 7 is an impossibility. Therefore a new investigation is justified.

There is one additional point I am doing more analysis on, which BasqueArch brought up, and that is an axial walk-off. NIST did not use this and my hand calculations show it is not viable either, but I am doing a finite element analysis of it to be sure.

Why did you edit out the hilited sentence?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why did you edit out the hilited sentence?

Because I decided it wasn't necessary to add in the post.

By the way, you didn't spell highlighted correctly. Why didn't you?

 

[Clayton Moore]

So is Clayton finally going the FatFreddy88 route of "Everyone who disagrees with my conspiracy really does actually believe in it, they're just deliberately lying to keep up the front?"

Pretty much. To be conversant on the OCT you can't be stupid. To believe that the OCT was the truth you'd be way stupid or uninformed. Since I'm a truther I have to say the OCT people, the duhbunkers, are not stupid.


And of course there is the universal truth of 9/11 that supersedes nonsense such as WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44
.


http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/08/robert-fisks-skepticism-vs-manuel.html

Garcia also fails to answer Fisk's most on-point observation: "would snap through at the same time?" The simultaneous and symmetrical "failure" is the heart of the controlled demolition hypothesis. Such perfect symmetry doesn't just happen, not once, not twice, God damn certainly not three times in a row! It must be made to happen, quite carefully, quite expertly.

 

[ozeco41]

...By the way, you didn't spell highlighted correctly. Why didn't you?

Which must be a prize example of "hoist by your own petard" - a doubly ironic allusion when it applies to a truther who supports CD.





Edit: PS I'll relent in case my comment was too subtle. 'doubly ironic' because:
1) The metaphoric allusion of 'hoist by your own petard' when using vBulletin which has 'hilite' tags to 'hilite' bits of text so 'hilited' is correct; AND
2) The literal meaning of 'hoist by your own petard' is 'blown up by your own bomb' - an appropriate allusion to a truther who favours explosive CD.

 

[R.Mackey]

TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?

It is apparent that TFK's job is to try to argue for the present official story and against engineers who have spoken out against it and who are demanding a new investigation.

[...]

This recent bit, by the likes of his fellow but apparently lower level ubiquitous apologist Oystein, is nothing more than an attempt at wearing me out.

(Emphasis added)

Outstanding. You've just reached Ultimate Fail.

The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis. Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis. Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses.

By the way, Tony, what do you mean you "no longer have time" to argue about it here? Of course you do! What else are you going to do? Go on tour with Richard Gage?

 

[beachnut]

That is this thread alone and the JREF forum alone. TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?
....

Does your boss know you are stalking someone on the Internet, wasting your time finding all his posts? Do you take longer reading TFK's post than he does typing them?

You failed to prove the "official story" is false - you have wasted 10 years failing to prove your CD delusion, the realcddeal is failure.

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

That is this thread alone and the JREF forum alone. TFK (under other psuedonyms like the one he used on the BBC forum, Teeefkay or something like that) is all over the Internet trying to apologize for the present and demonstrably false official story about what took down WTC 7 and the Twin Towers. It appears that this is what he does fulltime. Isn't that interesting?

Student 1 - "I saw my tutor drinking in a bar in town yesterday afternoon when he should have been marking papers"

Student 2 - "Wait a minute, what were YOU doing in town yesterday afternoon? Shouldn't you have been in the reference library researching your thesis?"

Student 1 - "Erm, heh..."

 

[Oystein]

...
It is apparent that TFK's job is to try to argue for the present official story...

LOL

The only ones trying to make money by selling claims about 9/11 are the likes of Richard Gage. And you know it, Tony.

 

[tsig]

Because I decided it wasn't necessary to add in the post.

By the way, you didn't spell highlighted correctly. Why didn't you?

Have you ever looked at how the word is spelled in the quote box?

highlighted[/HILITE.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

(Emphasis added)

Outstanding. You've just reached Ultimate Fail.



By the way, Tony, what do you mean you "no longer have time" to argue about it here? Of course you do! What else are you going to do? Go on tour with Richard Gage?

The reality is that it has been shown in unambiguous ways that the present NIST explanation for WTC 7's collapse has serious problems and is non-explanatory. A new investigation is clearly justified.

It is hard to understand why some, like TFK, argue against that so ardently and it certainly causes one to question their motives.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, it doesn't.

If you're so darn busy -- I hope you are, honestly -- then take a break. Go do something useful this weekend. Something that has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracy theories or anything. That's where I'm going.

 

[Miragememories]

"No, it doesn't.

If you're so darn busy -- I hope you are, honestly -- then take a break. Go do something useful this weekend. Something that has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracy theories or anything. That's where I'm going."

To re-consider your signature belief I hope?

"Nothing real can defeat us."

Oh really?

MM

 

[dc1971]

The reality is that it has been shown in unambiguous ways that the present NIST explanation for WTC 7's collapse has serious problems and is non-explanatory. A new investigation is clearly justified.

It is hard to understand why some, like TFK, argue against that so ardently and it certainly causes one to question their motives.

And a new investigation will justify WHAT? exactly?

Saying that the NIST explanation is not clearly justified is ludicrous considering it is a 10,000 page explanation. How much more explanatory should it be?

 

[Animal]

And a new investigation will justify WHAT? exactly?

Saying that the NIST explanation is not clearly justified is ludicrous considering it is a 10,000 page explanation. How much more explanatory should it be?

Tony's napkin calculation trumps the NIST, because, well, because Tony says so

 

[DGM]

To re-consider your signature belief I hope?



Oh really?

MM

I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie this is from.

(It's a context thing).

 

[TSR]

I'm guessing you haven't seen the movie this is from.

(It's a context thing).

Hey, now -- be nice.

Be nice.

Remember: no matter where you go, there you are...